alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 05-50964

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ARMANDO MARTINEZ-LOPEZ

Defendant - Appellant

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Del Rio

2:05-CR-72

---------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case to the district court for resentencing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed alternative

motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14 days

after denial of motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as moot.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 7, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
    
    
    To the Board of Directors of
    Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.:
    
    We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
    Management's Report on the Effectiveness of the Internal Control 
    Structure Relative to the Servicing of Consumer Revolving Credit 
    Card Receivables, that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.(the "Bank") 
    maintained an effective internal control structure over financial
    reporting relative to the servicing of consumer revolving credit 
    card receivables owned by Chevy Chase Master Credit Card Trust I 
    Series 1994-1, 1994-2, 1994-3, 1994-4, 1994-5, 1994-6, 1994-7,
    1995-1 and 1997-1, Chevy Chase Master Credit Card Trust II Series 1995-A,
    1995-B, 1995-C, 1995-D, 1996-A, 1996-B and 1996-C, (collectively
    referred to as the "Trusts" herein) as of September 30, 1997.
          
    Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, 
    included obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure 
    over financial reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and
    operating effectiveness of the internal control structure, and such
    other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We 
    believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
       
    Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure,
    errors or irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, 
    projections of any evaluation of the internal control structure over
    financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the
    internal control structure may become inadequate because of
    changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
    policies or procedures may deteriorate.
       
    In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained
    an effective internal control structure over financial reporting
    relative to the servicing of consumer revolving credit card 
    receivables owned by the Bank's credit card Trusts as of
    September 30, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, 
    based upon criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated  
    Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
    the Treadway Commission (COSO).
       
    This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
    board of directors and management of the Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, 
    Banker's Trust Company, Capital Markets Assurance Corporation, Chevy 
    Chevy Chase Bank Holding Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston 
    Corporation, Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch
    Investors Service, L.P. and should not be used for any other
    purpose.
       
       
       
       
       
       Washington, D.C.    
       November 18, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 49 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 49

Providing for the appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2012

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Reed) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the 
                         third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Alan Spoon of Massachusetts on 
May 5, 2012, is filled by the appointment of Barbara Barrett of 
Arizona. The appointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on the 
later of May 5, 2012, or the date of the enactment of this joint 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4526-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4526-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, MaryAnn Tierney, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Janice P. Barlow as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-15627 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# C_2022128EN.01001802.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-652/19) (1)

(Public procurement - Financial regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2022/C 128/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant-award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning the publication of information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Written
Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc. ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant's annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

| |  |  |  | /s/DANIEL HARVEYDANIEL HARVEYChief Financial Officer
| |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 2 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to United States citizenship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to United States citizenship. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification by the Congress: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 2 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘A person born in the United States shall not be a 

3 citizen of the United States unless— 

4 ‘‘(1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the 

5 United States; 

6 ‘‘(2) one parent of the person is an alien law7 fully admitted for permanent residence in the United 

8 States who resides in the United States; 

9 ‘‘(3) one parent of the person is an alien per10 forming active service in the Armed Forces of the 

11 United States; or 

12 ‘‘(4) the person is naturalized in accordance 

13 with the laws of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020087EN.01000702.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 10 December 2019 — CF, DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-901/19)

(2020/C 87/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CF, DN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 15(c) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) preclude the interpretation and application of a provision of national law whereby a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict (in the sense that a civilian would, solely on account of his presence in the relevant region, face a real risk of being subject to such a threat), in cases in which that person is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, can only exist where a minimum number of civilian casualties (killed and injured) has already been established? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 15(c) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) preclude the interpretation and application of a provision of national law whereby a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict (in the sense that a civilian would, solely on account of his presence in the relevant region, face a real risk of being subject to such a threat), in cases in which that person is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, can only exist where a minimum number of civilian casualties (killed and injured) has already been established?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the assessment as to whether a threat exists in that sense be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case? If not: Which other requirements of EU law apply to that assessment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the assessment as to whether a threat exists in that sense be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case? If not: Which other requirements of EU law apply to that assessment?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10295

Conference Calendar

DARRYL WAYNE HARTFIELD

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DAN JOSLIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-1709

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Darryl Wayne Hartfield, federal prisoner # 23121-077, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the

enhancement of his sentence based on prior burglary and attempted burglary

convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and the

career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Hartfield argues that he is actually

innocent of the sentence enhancement because his prior attempted burglary
No. 06-10295

2

conviction is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(e) and § 4B1.1 and

further argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the

enhancement of his sentence.

In order to satisfy the criteria of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause,

Hartfield must show that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable

Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of

a nonexistent offense and thatthe claim was foreclosed by circuitlaw atthe time

when it should have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in an initial § 2255

motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Hartfield has not made the requisite showing. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d

209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of

Hartfield’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTIANS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001000230
<NAME>                        OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              NOV-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         $ 1,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                     10,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,883
<PP&E>                                          12,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,506
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,594
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,127
<SALES>                                         45,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,360
<CGS>                                           24,907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,806
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
                                                


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert COMITO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10749.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Jan. 8, 2009.

Camille Damm, Esq., Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Todd Leventhal, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Comito appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following a limited remand pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Comito’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a pro se reply brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for substitution of counsel is DENIED. The district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         122,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,427,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   267,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,123,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,365,000
<PP&E>                                         964,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 180,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,297,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          545,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,404,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,297,000
<SALES>                                      1,515,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,515,000
<CGS>                                        1,154,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  685,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (298,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (298,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (298,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        



</TABLE>